I respect Childs' position. I don't even totally agree with it - he has a feeling about 'honoroing' the Vietnam service of his uncles when I think the more important issue there is for people to learn the problems with that war - but what he's saying is a good thing at recognizing art he isn't comfortable with.
I have refused to play a game like hitman, given the nature of the game. I've refused to have a char in an RPG lie to get a benefit in a quest.
I understand art can be a 'release' for some things; the non-violent Japanese have some very violent art; but then again look how they behaved in WWII with horrible war crimes.
It's a line between where 'art' is 'artistic' or somehow beneficial and where it's harmful, de-sensitizing people to violence, de-humanizing groups.
While a game of whites slaughtering a group of blacks would be 'unacceptable', that's why aliena and Nazis and zombies are such common villains, removing the political obstacles. But we should undrstand that those replacements are veiled covers for killing blacks or Mexicans or Jews or any other group it's not acceptable to portray. There's no such thing as zombies but there is an appetite for mass slaughter, in 'fantasy'.
So what's this issue about? It's ok to have a game where your strret gang slaughters another street gang; but not one where you're the KKK slaughteting the NAACP.
Why the difference? Both are just computer games and don't hurt anyone.
That's why we mention examples like 'SimHolocaust'. Imagine a shooter not killing gang members, but where you play the Colombine shooters and murder students.
It's where the lines are crossed closer to 'real tragedies', to where you are perversely satisfying evil desires - like child porn for a pedophile - it becomes more clearly offensive.
There's that line between 'art' and 'supporting evil', rejoicing in the evil. How about a graphic sim of raping a child or torturing a cat? Who would want that? Good to support?
We should err on the side of freedom of art, but not feel there's anything wrong with not wanting to take part in art depicting things we oppose.
As far as Childs not wanting to support or take part in it? Good for him. And hopefully some other art might help broaden his perspective on Vietnam.
So am I absolutist about the 'freedom of art'? Up to the point it's encouraging a real threat to the safety of people - i.e., I support German restrictions on the Swastika.
And I don't see those restrictions as justifiable in the US - even if there is sporadic violence by racist groups who revel in the use o fthe Swastika.
In Britain, they're closer to the line with growing, real movements using those images and increasing attacks on people.
But I'd allow the publication of something like Mein Kampf pretty much always, including Germany - hiding evil is not the way to fight it. Let people see it and see why it's wrong.
If Mein Kampf were to start to catch on and gain followers - that's a danger of democracy. The threat to 'the freedom of the people' is too great to censor that.
This is an old free speech issue - what do you do with harmful lies? Censor them or fight them with information why they're wrong? The latter is generally the better answer.
However, that better answer is under great attack today, when money is so one-sided at pushing lies that benefit a few on society, and they frequently win.
Playing the Nazis in a video game is usually nothing more than a childish action, like putting something unacceptable in a screen handle name.
Something people with any sensibility may not be too interested in, but not close to needing to be censored, outside Germany.